Political Crossfire Forums

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: It seems that most scientists agree that it would have been colder...not hotter. It seems to have to do with nuclear fusion not being as efficient when the gas is denser (for the same reason...the sun is getting hotter as it becomes less dense). It is also believed that slight variations in temperature greatly effect radiation intensity of nuclear fusion.

It seems that scientist would expect the earth to be a block of ice billions of years ago....although the according to the theory of evolution there would need to be warm water in order for organism to evolve. Scientists theorize that green house gases must have been much thicker...and therefore the earth was warm enough for these things to occur. Mind you...there is no evidence for this. And they are just inventing a theory to explain another theory...but that's pretty common anyway.

As usual incorrect - The sun is getting hotter due to the accumulation of helium 4 ash around the core. In time this will become the sun's primary ignition source during the red giant phase.

And you appear to be having a love affair with the phrase "It seems" Even though the sources you quoted "Seem" to be either incorrect or mis quoted.

If life needs warm water, then please explain the existence of black smokers.

It is easy for you to win arguements when you simply ignore evidence presented to you.

You dismiss that NASA website out of hand, but what are your creditials to be able to do that.

You dismiss both Newtons Universal Law of Gravity and Keplers Law, even though you live your life by these laws.

What worries me most - you dismiss information about the sun and how it works. You dismiss the whole body of information about stella evolution.

You dismiss the Herts - Russell theory of stella evolution even though to date not a single exception to the theory has been found. You dismiss the Hubble theory of galactic distance measurement

You dismiss the same body of theories that brought atomic destruction to two Japanese cities.

By inference you dismiss most of our understanding of light and how it works.

Why?

Because you believe you are right, you believe you are clever, however you were you ignorance like a badge.

I have given you examples of tests you can do from your own back yard that will help you understand how stars work - you ignored them

I can give you many many many more experiements that you can conduct from your backyard, so you dont need to trust anybody else but yourself. How do I know these experiments work? I have done most of them myself

But you wont will you - because you might accidently prove to yourself that you are wrong.

And we cant have that can we

[John]

Quote: It is easy for you to win arguements when you simply ignore evidence presented to you.

Well I haven't seen you dispute the Faint Young Sun Paradox...which I brought up a few pages back.


and BTW...you're throwing around a whole lot of me dismissing stuff that I haven't said a word about.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Well I haven't seen you dispute the Faint Young Sun Paradox...which I brought up a few pages back.

Then you need to re-read the thread. I even posted an extract from the article used to claim the faint young sun theory

[John]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Well I haven't seen you dispute the Faint Young Sun Paradox...which I brought up a few pages back.

Then you need to re-read the thread. I even posted an extract from the article used to claim the faint young sun theory

Just went back over it...and don't see how you refuted it.

Please explain why the Faint Young Sun Paradox isn't a valid point.


Google is your friend...

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Please explain why the Faint Young Sun Paradox isn't a valid point.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_sun_paradox

Does it very nicely

In particular

This part sums it up very nicely

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.

When you actually have a theory to debate, sure to come back...wont you

[Wizard From Oz]

Faint young sun

The so-called '"faint young sun paradox" refers to the fact that the sun, according to the standard solar model, slowly increases in luminosity, as the giga-years go by. During the tenure of life on earth, close to 4 billion years, the sun's output has increased by something like 25% (Sagan & Chyba 1997). Despite this increase in solar heating, the climate here has been stable enough to permit life to go on.

Faulkner (1998) invokes the faint young sun paradox as evidence that the sun is young. Orthodox explanations of the paradox (to which we shall return below) are dismissed as too improbable, unless there is a guiding intelligence behind them. If the earth were recently created (presumably with an artificially aged sun, to match its current luminosity, which indeed is not that of a 6000-year-old star ), the paradox is trivially resolved, since there has been no time for any appreciable change in luminosity.

However, Faulkner's argument is less than perfectly compelling, for several reasons. The connection between solar output and Earthly climate is far from straightforward. There are also minor misleading details in his reasoning, like his quoting a 40% change in luminosity since 4.6 billion years ago, rather than the more interesting 25% change since life got started a while later. The climate before life got started is quite irrelevant, and so are any luminosity changes before that time. Selecting the right starting point allows you to pick any change you like — the luminosity of the sun was 100% less 6 billion years ago, when it wasn't shining at all...

It should also be noted that a 25% (or 40%) change in solar output, does not translate into a corresponding change in the temperature on earth. To begin with, the temperature is determined by the balance between heat inflow and outflow. The inflow is directly proportional to the solar luminosity -- but the outflow is to first order proportional to the fourth power of the earth's temperature ( Stefan-Boltzmann's law; check any physics textbook). In the absence of any feedback effects, a 25% change in solar luminosity translates into a 7% change in surface temperature here, which need not be lethal -- it is the same order of magnitude as the difference between tropical and arctic climates today, which is survivable.

There is, however, plenty of feedback in the earth's climate system, both positive and negative. Faulkner notes, quite correctly, that unchecked positive feedback will be fatal, as has happened on both Mars and Venus (in opposite directions). He asserts also that any negative feedback has to be carefully "tuned" to handle the large change in insolation, and pronounces such fine-tuning in a naturalistic framework to be less plausible than recent divine creation.

The feedback system of the earth is highly complex, but two major factors can be discerned:

Albedo, which is a measure of how much light is reflected from the earth without heating it. A higher albedo means a cooler climate, other things being equal. Both positive feedback (heating decreases the high-albedo snow cover at high latitudes) and negative feedback (heating may increase evaporation and so increase high-albedo cloud cover) effects are present; it is not obvious which would dominate in practice.
Greenhouse effect, which is caused by certain gases in the atmosphere letting sunlight in but blocking heat from the earth from escaping into space. The earth is currently some 30 degrees hotter than it would be without any greenhouse effect, due to water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (the well-publicized threat of global warming is due to our release of a lot of extra carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, thus increasing the greenhouse effect). Other greenhouse gases that may have been important four billion years ago include methane and ammonia. The greenhouse feedback effects are even more complex than for albedo, particularly with life present.
Unraveling all the various feedback effects is a thriving research industry today, dedicated to understanding the threat of global warming, and what needs to be done about it. A couple of recent reviews: (Trenberth 1997; Mahlman 1997; Keeling 1997; Lindzen 1997; Thomson 1997). The faint young sun paradox is a less immediate threat, and so attracts less funding in itself, but a lot of the global-warming results can be generalized.
There are two major points to cover, in order to assess how seriously to take the arguments of Faulkner (1998):

How fine did the fine-tuning have to be? We know that life could form and survive (since it's still here), but did it need to thrive all the time? What are the climatic extremes that earth could take without getting totally sterilized?
How plausible are the feedback mechanisms that need to be invoked to explain the climatic record?
The formation of life is usually imaged in terms of Darwin's classical warm pond of organic soup, which requires a friendly climate. But there are other scenarios which are much less sensitive. One recently popular theory of abiogenesis postulates early life getting started at underwater volcanic vents (Chyba 1998; for a popular account, see Fortey (1997)). Since this one is driven entirely by volcanic energy, it is essentially insensitive to surface climate, within very wide limits -- the oceans should neither boil away nor freeze solid to the bottom, but surface temperatures anywhere between –100 and +100 centigrades ought be ok. A frozen surface under a faint sun is thus no obstacle (Bada & Bigham & Miller 1994). An interesting present-day analogy is Jupiter's moon Europa (Kerr 1997; McKinnon 1997; Carr et al 1998; Khurana et al 1998; Greenberg et al 1998), where it is speculated that life may exist in an ocean underneath a thick ice cover (Gaidos & Nealson & Kirschvink 1999), despite Europa receiving a lot less sunlight than the faint young sun delivered to the earth.
While life may conceivably have formed underneath a thick ice cover, the fossil record indicates the presence of an ice-free surface within a few hundred million years from the beginning. Stromatolites (common early fossils) are shallow-water formations, and photosynthesis appears to be an early development as well (Cowen 1995). There is also isotopic evidence of a warm climate at early times (Weisstein 1996). So we nevertheless need a decent climate at a time when the sun was 20% dimmer than today. The most reasonable way to achieve this, is by invoking a larger greenhouse effect.

There is a fair body of evidence that the atmosphere of the early earth was quite different from the nitrogen-oxygen mix that we're breathing today. The oxygen is almost exclusively the product of photosynthetic organisms, which weren't around in the beginning. There is also evidence from ancient minerals that the atmosphere was free from oxygen at the time when they formed, and evidence from later minerals (notably the so-called "banded iron formations") of a transition to an oxygen-rich atmosphere after perhaps two billion years (Cowen 1995; Kerr 1999).

At present, huge amounts of carbon have been locked away by organisms, both in living biomass and in carbonate sediments; it is very likely that much of this carbon used to be in the form of carbon dioxide (Sagan & Chyba 1997). The present carbon reservoirs, if totally converted to carbon dioxide, would give an atmosphere similar to that of Venus, with more than enough greenhouse effect to compensate for a fainter sun. It is not clear just how much of the carbon actually was in the atmosphere (Kasting 1993; Sagan & Chyba 1997), but even if it were only a small fraction of that available, a sizeable greenhouse effect would result. Some measurements of ancient carbon dioxide have been done (Mora & Driese & Colarusso 1996), but not in the relevant time periods.

Furthermore, there are other gases that are potentially large greenhouse contributors on the early earth, notably methane and ammonia (Kerr 1999). Sagan & Chyba (1997) propose an ammonia-dominated model, in which enough greenhouse warming is generated to achieve above-zero temperatures despite a faint sun.

Carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia are all common gases in the atmospheres of other planets, and are reasonable (nearly unavoidable) components of the original atmosphere of the earth, given our current theories of planetary formation. It is thus highly plausible that a substantial greenhouse effect at least partially compensated for the faint early sun.

Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient (Lenton 1998). Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner (1998) would have a point in calling it "miraculous".

It appears, however, that the earth can tolerate substantial climatic swings, alleviating the need for high-precision lucky/miraculous fine-tuning. There is evidence of extensive glaciations in Precambrian times (Kaufman & Knoll & Narbonne 1997; Jenkins & Frakes 1998), interleaved with much warmer periods. At least one of the glaciations may well have covered the entire planet, resulting in a deep-frozen "snowball earth" (Hoffman & Kaufman & Halverson 1998; Kerr 1998; Hoffman et al 1998). Life under several kilometers of ice can survive for a reasonable period of time, using e.g. geochemical energy (Gaidos & Nealson & Kirschvink 1999), even though massive extinctions of less hardy life forms can be expected.. The Precambrian fossil record is spotty enough that one (or even more than one) mass extinction of the magnitude expected from such a deep-freeze may well have passed unnoticed, even if only a few organisms survived, and then re-diversified.

If life could survive such an unstable climate, the implausibility argument of Faulkner (1998) is severely weakened.

A different solution to the faint young sun problem is offered by adherents of the Gaia hypothesis (Lenton 1998, and references therein). The basic idea is that the climate is kept stable by active biological feedback; either through some mystical Gaian planetary consciousness, or through more naturalistic means, as argued by Lenton (1998; but see also Robertson & Robinson (1998)). It would be instructive for creationists to study Gaian publications, because here we have another unorthodox hypothesis with scientific aspirations and religious affiliations. Nevertheless, unlike creationists, Gaians manage to get published in highly respected peer-reviewed journals (Lenton (1998) is in Nature), that wouldn't touch a paper like Faulkner's with a ten-foot pole. The difference can hardly be explained by an anti-religious bias, since there is just as much religion in the Gaia hypothesis, nor by a specific anti-Christian bias -- I'm willing to bet that there are more Christians than religious Gaians among the editors of Nature. For anybody who is actually familiar with how science works, a comparison of Lenton (1998) and Faulkner (1998) makes the answer obvious: Lenton is a competent scientists, who knows the rules, and who is capable of separating his science and his religion. He avoids elementary blunders, and avoids falling into shrill rhetoric. Creationists do none of these things, (though Faulkner's paper is far above average quality among creationist writings). If creationists could write like Lenton, they, too, could get published in real journals and earn some scientific respect.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

John wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: "Real'" research. That's funny.

I like you...you have spunk.

I would rather deal with the errors in your post than personal observations of me

I don't think you can...since nobody as of yet has the answers (scientifically speaking that is). We can go all day...trust me...I can come up with a rebuttal to anything you post. Been there done that with posters who can run circles around you. But like I said...I like you...you have spunk. I give you an E for effort.
:-D

It's true, John can respond to anything you post, guys. He can make up an answer way faster than you can search the Internet and find one!

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: It's true, John can respond to anything you post, guys. He can make up an answer way faster than you can search the Internet and find one!

LOL - well I have been waiting four days - I suspect he has done a cut and run, cause I actually know what I am talking about :)

[John]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: It's true, John can respond to anything you post, guys. He can make up an answer way faster than you can search the Internet and find one!

LOL - well I have been waiting four days - I suspect he has done a cut and run, cause I actually know what I am talking about :)

Come on kid. I gave you a valid theory that you disagree with...I see no reason to go back and forth all day.

Sitting there smuggly pretending that you know how the sun developed and how it's acted through it's lifetime. :lol:

I stopped reading your post about right here:
Quote:
The connection between solar output and Earthly climate is far from straightforward. There are also minor misleading details in his reasoning, like his quoting a 40% change in luminosity since 4.6 billion years ago, rather than the more interesting 25% change since life got started a while later. The climate before life got started is quite irrelevant, and so are any luminosity changes before that time.


Of course it's relevant, unless you believe that life didn't exist and then within a very short period of time existed in it's full complexity. The connection between solar output and just about every other subject dealing with science is "far from straightforward".

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Come on kid. I gave you a valid theory that you disagree with...I see no reason to go back and forth all day.

Sitting there smuggly pretending that you know how the sun developed and how it's acted through it's lifetime.

I stopped reading your post about right here:


You asked for a rebuttle of your theory - I offered it, and still await some intelligent rebuttle from you - Or do I assume you agree with me

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Of course it's relevant, unless you believe that life didn't exist and then within a very short period of time existed in it's full complexity. The connection between solar output and just about every other subject dealing with science is "far from straightforward".

And that is actually true - around 560 million years ago, something happened to life on this planet and in a very short period there was a massive expansion in the forms of life to be found. Prior to that, much of life remained on the cellular level. Suddenly enormous diversity comes into play, and many of the modern forms found today can trace their origins to this era

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/1/229

Do we know what caused it? No, there are some very interesting ideas, but nothing that can be claimed definitive. Does this make evolution irrelievant? No, just the admisson that it is a work in progress

[John]

Quote: And that is actually true - around 560 million years ago, something happened to life on this planet and in a very short period there was a massive expansion in the forms of life to be found. Prior to that, much of life remained on the cellular level. Suddenly enormous diversity comes into play

This I agree with, and is what we see when we look at what has been left behind. The only part I disagree with is the assumption that it happened 560 million years ago. In my opinion the ways that they come about dating these kinds of things come from a preconceived notion that it all happened millions of years ago and the evidence is manipulated to fit that paradigm. Not that this is done dishonestly, I don’t think it is in most cases…it just a type of subject that doesn’t really have a whole lot of known factors and some assumption is required. For example….if you begin with the assumption that everything just happened naturally through random mixing of elements…then lots of time is logical in your assumption and will be placed as a constant in your paradigm. Once the paradigm is in place, people who have accepted it will throw out any theory without even considering it if it doesn’t have the certain constants that fit their paradigm.

[Wizard From Oz]

I will ask you one question - According to creation theory, all fossil bearing rock was laid during the great flood. Assuming this, why does the material change. I was at a site in westen Kansas today that has exposed sedimentary cliffs over 20 feet thick.

However the fossil bearing rock changed from clay to mudstone, and back again - mixed into this was a series of thin iron oxide layes, and two layers as thick as paper that I could not identify.

If all this material was layed in one flood event, how do you explain the change of material being laid down.

At another nearby site we had about a five foot layer, heavy with saltwater fossils, then a layer of 15 feet before we began to encounter fossils again in the final foot or so of the deposit.

Again how can this happen in a single flood event. The fossils should be evenly deposited through the strata.

[John]

MG1962 wrote: I will ask you one question - According to creation theory, all fossil bearing rock was laid during the great flood. Assuming this, why does the material change. I was at a site in westen Kansas today that has exposed sedimentary cliffs over 20 feet thick.

However the fossil bearing rock changed from clay to mudstone, and back again - mixed into this was a series of thin iron oxide layes, and two layers as thick as paper that I could not identify.

If all this material was layed in one flood event, how do you explain the change of material being laid down.

At another nearby site we had about a five foot layer, heavy with saltwater fossils, then a layer of 15 feet before we began to encounter fossils again in the final foot or so of the deposit.

Again how can this happen in a single flood event. The fossils should be evenly deposited through the strata.


I'm no expert on the subject, but I believe it has something to do with the flood also being caused by water gushing up from under ground and this causing a lot of change in the continents. Some believe that the whole world was basically one big land mass, and that the drifting of the continents happened over a few hundred years due to the extreme change in pressures and what not caused by the explosions that shot out the water and added to the flood. Some believe that the water escaped from what we now see as the edges of the continental plates.

[mODULAR mAN]

The Global Flood has been proven not to have happened. It couldn't have. Impossible. It is a myth, just as all the Flood myths in tha world are. Xains ask for Special Pleadeing when they mock all the other myths but ask everyone to take THEIR story as 'gospel' :wink:

Here is an older story of the Flood. Note, it has an Ark, a builder, etc.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm